From: "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Subject: Access to sub‑program as argument: first order or higher order?
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:24:24 +0100
Date: 2013-12-27T19:24:24+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <op.w8rj2ykpule2fv@cardamome> (raw)
Hi all, … it's a long time I did not asked a question here. Also, Merry
Christmas to all, although I'm a bit late.
Just a quick question with a formal taste: within Ada, functions and
sub‑programs are not treated as values or expressions; within functional
programming, a function getting a function as an argument, is an higher
order function (precisely, second order, if I'm not wrong); within Ada, is
a sub‑program which get a access to a sub‑program, still to be named a
first‑order sub‑program or an higher‑order sub‑program instead?
Surely the best way to get an answer to this, is to get an answer to this
other one: what do you need to prove something about an Ada sub‑program
getting an access to another sub‑program as an argument? First Order Logic
or Higher Order Logic? I've never played with it, and don't remember if,
as an example, SPARK allows it, neither I know if SPARK if finally based
on FOL or HOL.
If someone already did this: if you ever proved something about such a
sub‑program, what kind of logic have you used?
--
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University
next reply other threads:[~2013-12-27 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-27 18:24 Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) [this message]
2014-04-17 5:39 ` Access to sub‑program as argument: first order or higher order? Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox